Madden v. State

70 Ga. 383
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 13, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 70 Ga. 383 (Madden v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Madden v. State, 70 Ga. 383 (Ga. 1883).

Opinion

Jackson, Chief Justice.

The counsel for the state moved to dismiss this writ of [384]*384error, on the ground that the plaintiffs in error had escaped from jail and remained beyond the custody of the jailer and the jurisdiction of the court. They were convicted of the offence of robbery, and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment in the penitentiary, and while in jail in the county of Muscogee, pending this writ of error, they made their escape, and have not been recaptured or surrendered themselves. These facts are brought to the knowledge of this court by the affidavit of the jailer, and are admitted to be true.

In our judgment, they have thus deprived themselves of all right further to prosecute their case here. Their act is an open defiance of the law, and thereby they have deprived themselves of all legal right further to prosecute this writ of error.

Such are the adjudications of the courts of Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, Maine, and of the Supreme Court of the United States and the English courts. 97 Mass., 543; 14 Grattan, 677; 59 N. Y., 81; 31 Maine, 592; 94 U. S., 97; 17 Q. B., 503.

In an exhaustive opinion in 55th California, 290, these cases are all reviewed, and the same conclusion is reached. In some of the cases, time was allowed for submission to the jurisdiction before the cases were dismissed. Following that practice when this case was called, we allowed it to remain on this docket to the last day of the term, as long as our constitution and law for the government and jurisdiction of this court will permit; inasmuch as all cases are thereby required to be disposed of during the first term, with the exception of providential intervention.

No information or proof having reached us of the surrender of the plaintiffs in error to the jailer or authorities of the state, the law requires that the writ of error be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Writ of error dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Blassingame v. State
270 S.E.2d 399 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Saleem v. State
263 S.E.2d 490 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Golden v. State
243 S.E.2d 303 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Yates v. Brown
219 S.E.2d 729 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
Riggins v. State
216 S.E.2d 723 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Salisbury v. State
213 S.E.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Blaylock v. State
199 S.E.2d 369 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Gravitt v. State
147 S.E.2d 447 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Mosley v. State
5 S.E.2d 47 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
James v. State
132 S.E. 417 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Munday v. State
100 S.E. 19 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Gentry v. State
17 S.E. 956 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1893)
State v. . Jacobs
12 S.E. 962 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 Ga. 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madden-v-state-ga-1883.